Jennette v. United Parcel Service, Inc

Background

Khjim Jennette filed a letter-motion asking the court to address her anticipated request to quash, or directly cancel, subpoenas that United Parcel Service, Inc. planned to serve on her current employer and medical provider. The defendant responded with its own letter-motion.

Subpoena to Current Employer

The proposed subpoena sought all documents in Jennette’s employment file, including applications, reference and cover letters, interview notes, discipline and attendance records, compensation and wage information, tax forms, benefits, promotions, vaccination requirements and compliance, and other employment-file records.

The court explained that subpoenas to a current employer in a dispute involving a former employer can negatively affect the employee. Courts therefore generally seek relevant information through less intrusive methods, usually from the employee. Here, the court found the subpoena premature because Jennette was available to answer questions about her current employment under oath and had stated that she could provide wage forms or other documents showing her income since her termination by the defendant. The court concluded that a deposition appeared sufficient to meet the defendant’s need for relevant information without the risks of subpoenaing the current employer.

The court therefore granted Jennette’s letter-motion to quash the subpoena to be served on her current employer. The court stated that the defendant could later seek permission to conduct third-party discovery from that employer if the record showed that such discovery was warranted.

Subpoena to Medical Provider

Jennette argued that the medical subpoena was unnecessary, overly broad, and irrelevant because it requested any or all of her records. The subpoena covered records from January 1, 2015, through the present and was consistent with Jennette’s signed authorization allowing release of medical records for that period.

The court applied the rule that third-party subpoenas must seek information relevant to a party’s claim or defense. The defendant argued that it needed to determine whether Jennette had received or taken medical treatment involving gelatin or MRC-5 because Jennette alleged that receiving a vaccine would violate her religious beliefs, and vaccines may use those substances. The court found that Jennette’s prior vaccinations were relevant and that she had placed her medical history at issue.

The court agreed that a subpoena to the medical provider was relevant but required it to be limited to records concerning Jennette’s vaccination history. It therefore denied in part Jennette’s letter-motion to quash the medical-provider subpoena and ordered that the subpoena be limited to vaccination records from January 1, 2015, through the present.

Disposition

The court stated that Jennette’s letter-motion was granted in part and denied in part. It granted the request to quash the subpoena to Jennette’s current employer and denied in part the request concerning the medical provider, subject to the required limitation on the medical records. Judge Dale E. Ho also directed the clerk to close ECF Nos. 53 and 55.